APHC010017592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 504/2025 Between: Kona Venkata Rao @ Venkat and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. BALA KRISHNA T 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2025 in/and Criminal Petition No:504 OF 2025 C O M M O N O R D E R: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/Accused, to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No.97 of 2024 of Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatla District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 IPC, 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act, read with 34 IPC. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners herein/Accused, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State are present before this Court. The complainant and accused produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent identified their parties in the open Court. The concerned police officer is present before this Court and identified the parties. 3. This Court questioned the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with regard to compromise, and he categorically stated to the extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners herein/Accused and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification 3 of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,1 held at paragraph No.57, as under: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in 1 2012 (9) Scale 257 4 relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 5 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and as the parties have entered into a compromise, and compounded the offences, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R No.97 of 2024 of Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatla District is hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.504 of 2025 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI Date: 21.01.2025 PSA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2025 in/and Criminal Petition No:504 OF 2025 Date: 21.01.2025 PSA